I forgot to add: Businesses that run below 500.000$ turnover pay only 3% tax per income not 16% per profit. This law is meant to encourage new business that are small and have low running costs, such as those in the service sector. In many instances, you're basically not paying any taxes. If you have 2 employees that 3% goes down to 1% but it won't be better cause cost per labor is 37%. So, you are gona hire them in the gray area with a colaboration contract of 11% labor taxes or be in the black and not pay any taxes at all. The state is making money through the VAT tax anyway. That is a tax nobody can avoid. So let the money spin around in the economy and collect that VAT tax.

There are also a lot of governmet programs that help new businesses, such as getting 10.000 euro from the state through a "first business" program. All in all, it's a very pro-business environment.

Poor countries that have high taxation stay poor forever. There are countless examples of such cases. In developing countries, it is recommanded to have super low and super predictable taxes. Eastern europe has been praised by the whole world for understanding this simple idea that some countries in the west still strugle to understand. Eastern europe is considered a great example of how low taxation, low burocracy, flat and predictable tax rates, - produced exactly the results that the economy manual said they will produce.

In my country, even the socialist proudfully brag about being right-wing. The socialist party officially considers itself right-wing economically. That is how popular liberal economics are. They have proven so successfull in our case that even the socialist try to paint themselves as right-wing. Even the birds singing in the sky understood this is what we need. It's working exactly as the economics manual said it will work.

When it comes to developed countries, that is another discussion. But when it comes to developing ones, it is a no-brainer. It has been proven time and time again all around the world that you need super liberal economics in developing countries. I don't know what you understood from Philipines, but Philipines had bigger economic growth than China this year. I don't think they're doing bad.

That is reassuring news. Originally an import tax was proposed to encourage corporations to invest in the U.S. once they repatriated their money from abroad. But that idea was shelved, at least for now. It seems to me that a lot of the money that is going to be flowing back into the country will go towards stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

Yeah. A few years ago (can't remember how many) the feds had a "tax holiday" where corps. with lots of cash stashed overseas were given a reduced tax rate for bringing that cash back into the US.....the idea was that it would stimulate spending and thus stimulate the economy. What happened was that almost all of it went into stock buybacks and it had almost no effect on spending at all.

I think that really the only way to know how this new tax law will work is to wait and see. If economists could actually know what will happen then there wouldn't be any controversy and no one would be paying much attention.

Reaganomics (/reɪɡəˈnɒmɪks/; a portmanteau of [Ronald] Reagan and economics attributed to Paul Harvey)[1] refers to the economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are commonly associated with supply-side economics, referred to as trickle-down economics or voodoo economics by political opponents, and free-market economics by political advocates.

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.[3][4]

Madman, and a Killer.
As a former resident of the Phils, I'm happy to see all this investment from China and Japan. However, that growth has nothing to do with their tax policies. It just means China and Japan see a country, and a leader, they can manipulate.

Last edited by alan on Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Filipinos are the nicest people I've ever met. They live in just about the worse country I've ever visited. I love them, but hate the country. Still, I will go back. Nowhere is there a better example of a poor government and good people.

Got a tax cut! Now, I will hire more workers! And pay them more!
Right?
No, actually, I will not. I will hire more workers when I see the need for more workers. My tax cuts have nothing to do with that.
And I will pay them more money? No, I will not. My tax cuts have no relation to how much workers are paid.
Right?
Tax cut for the super wealthy do nothing other than make the super wealthy more wealthy, and hurt everyone else.
Right?

Bush W cut taxes. What happened? Did we get more growth?
No. We did not. Because cutting taxes does not result in economic growth. This has been proven. It has been proven over and over again, yet, people still believe in this fantasy. Why are people so God Dam Stupid?

Why is fiscal policy of one nation a matter of discussion in an international forum? In the quote above I, we, people all refer to a particular nation and its inhabitants. People are not stupid .. people of a particular nation did their best to be stupid on Nov 8th 2016. Big difference.

It is not news or current event or politics that is of any importance to the average member of this forum.

The topic could have been framed as - do tax cuts for wealthy help .. and as an illustration quote this example of fiscal policy/legislation.

Since 80% of the members of this forum are from that particular nation, I know my words will not get any traction .. but I would request that each question be put into proper context. This topic should have been framed in proper economic context, asking the right questions after some research.

It is a good forum .. lot of knowledge here .. my request is don't do your best to drive visitors from rest of the world away.

As a member of the other 20% I can say with a degree of certainty .. we are not interested in your President or your politics or your legislation or the monthly episode of a nutcase spraying bullets. We do not know what is an AR-15 nor do we care. Whether in Holland or Ho Chi Minh City we are simple people .. who lead on the whole productive, happy and useful lives .. with not much hand wringing in embarrassment necessary as you need to do every couple of months. Maybe once in a decade we need to do that if ever.

You have a cultural problem with your super wealthy .. have you ever thought maybe others don't? In many countries they are looked upon as an inspiration and as wealth creators without whom the economic system would collapse. The wealthiest man in your country (Jeff Bezos) is literally a God to me .. a superhero .. like Thor.

If in a general discussion about economic policy tax legislation of a particular country was cited as an example it would have been perfectly okay.

No_Mind

Last edited by No_Mind on Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

1) Why is fiscal policy of one nation a matter of discussion in an international forum?
... It is not news or current event or politics that is of any importance to the average member of this forum.

2) The topic could have been framed as - do tax cuts for wealthy help .. and as an illustration [of a] ... fiscal policy/legislation.

3) I would request that each question be put into proper context. This topic should have been framed in proper economic context, asking the right questions after some research.

4) If in a general discussion about economic policy tax legislation of a particular country was cited as an example it would have been perfectly okay.

In 2) and 3) I'm thinking that your main point is that the topic should have been explicitly framed in what you call a "proper context". Yes?

In 3) I'm unsure what "proper economic context, asking the right questions after some research" would mean ... in this context.

In 4) the "proper context" is described as "general discussion about economic policy" that cites "tax legislation of a particular country ... as an example".

As a counter request to 3) I would ask you to propose how the OP (original post) could have been written.

In the context of 4), I'm of several minds. One is that the OP was written in a rather generic fashion so that it could be understand as a "general discussion about economic policy". Another is that an explicit stated context -- "I think my particular tax cut raises a question of general concern" -- would have been better.
A third is that the author of a blog titled "I got a tax cut" should have identified the nation issuing the tax cut. Not very skillful of the author and it puts a extra and unnecessary burden on the reader. For example "as a tax payer in country XYZ I just got a tax cut" - that begins to explain what kind of tax cut you just got.

----------------------------Many OPs are Poorly Written -- How to Respond
If your point is that this OP -- like many OPs in this thread -- are poorly conceived and written then I agree. So what can readers do?
A couple of actionable and concrete ideas I believe would improve many discussions are:

The first response should be to a) ask clarifying questions, b) to re-frame or re-state the OP as you understand it or c) to offer a better re-framing.

To expand on the last point, re-write the OP as you think it should have written and post it. It's much more helpful show by good example than to only criticize. No matter how accurate and apropos the criticism, a critique that includes an illustration with a concrete example is much more helpful.

I once heard a wise therapist say: Growing up is learning that your parents are neither demons or angels.

You in the US have a cultural problem with your super wealthy .. have you ever thought maybe others don't? In many countries they are looked upon as an inspiration and as wealth creators without whom the economic system would collapse. The wealthiest man in your country (Jeff Bezos) is literally a God to me .. a superhero .. like Thor.

I take it as a general principle that talk about "corporations", business etc that treats them either as demons or angels comes from less mature minds.
------------Revision: I regret my words above. In the quote above I assumed the author was speaking for effect about someone much admired in calling Bezos "literally a God". In fact I felt encouraged by the author's words. But assumptions are risky things and I may have thrown dirt on someone else's acknowledgement of effort, skill, and accomplishment. I regret that.
-----------

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.[3][4]

Wow. Seems like a very one-sided view of history. I remember it as more of mixed bag.

As I remember it inflation went from very high down to current levels. A movement that many said might not be possible due to a 'new normal'.

Tax revenues went up a lot - it's claimed that was due to tax and regulation reduction.

But spending went up. Congress, which has most control of the budget, was under control of the opposition party much of his administration -- that's either the explanation or an excuse. The balance resulted in a increase in debt.

Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In 3) I'm unsure what "proper economic context, asking the right questions after some research" would mean ... in this context.

I am not the OP. I do not presume to know what he wanted to argue or ask hence I cannot frame questions on his behalf. It appears he has a complaint about supply side economics. But beyond that I cannot make out much. Reagan, G W Bush, Trump .. the Republican obsession with lowering taxes is well known.

All I wanted to point out was that .. there are people from USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, mainland Europe and Asia participating in this forum .. and only one of them is arrogant enough to write "I got a tax cut What will I do with it" without any clarification about which nation he belongs to.

People from that nation expect the world to know they have received a tax cut. What self importance!

I once heard a wise therapist say: Growing up is learning that your parents are neither demons or angels.

You in the US have a cultural problem with your super wealthy .. have you ever thought maybe others don't? In many countries they are looked upon as an inspiration and as wealth creators without whom the economic system would collapse. The wealthiest man in your country (Jeff Bezos) is literally a God to me .. a superhero .. like Thor.

I take it as a general principle that talk about "corporations", business etc that treats them either as demons or angels comes from less mature minds.

Do you object to hero worship? Gods have feet of clay kinda belief? That is the way you choose to look at geniuses .. I am different .. can you allow for that? And unless the user name is your real name I take it that you have some fondness for "the Father of Microbiology."

I have lots of 'Gods' .. Galileo, Newton, Tesla, Einstein, Thomas Edison, Wernher von Braun, Jeff Bezos, Erwin Rommel, George S Patton, Gandhi and many more .. of whom only Bezos is ultra wealthy. All my 'Gods' have/had extraordinary approach to problem solving .. something a mere mortal is not capable of .. which is why I look upon them as 'Gods' .. if they committed small indiscretions (Edison persecuting Tesla, von Braun working for Hitler) .. it does not tarnish their greatness.

No_Mind

Last edited by No_Mind on Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

All I wanted to point out was that .. there are people from USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, mainland Europe and Asia participating in this forum .. and only one of them is arrogant enough to write "I got a tax cut What will I do with it" without any clarification about which nation he belongs to.

I think everyone (except perhaps for you) knew what nation gave him the tax cut.

HEY EVERYBODY OUT THERE READING THIS,
If you did not know which nation gave him a tax cut would you please post here telling us that? I would love to be proven wrong by saying that I think that everyone (except for him) knew. Please come and post! I will be thankful for your input.
chownah

HEY EVERYBODY OUT THERE READING THIS,
If you did not know which nation gave him a tax cut would you please post here telling us that? I would love to be proven wrong by saying that I think that everyone (except for him) knew. Please come and post! I will be thankful for your input.
chownah

Hi Chownah,

I'd like to help out, but unfortunately the OP had "Location: Miramar Beach, Fl." on it, and that (plus the frequent references to God Dam Trump) sort of gave the game away...

I once heard a wise therapist say: Growing up is learning that your parents are neither demons or angels.

You in the US have a cultural problem with your super wealthy .. have you ever thought maybe others don't? In many countries they are looked upon as an inspiration and as wealth creators without whom the economic system would collapse. The wealthiest man in your country (Jeff Bezos) is literally a God to me .. a superhero .. like Thor.

I take it as a general principle that talk about "corporations", business etc that treats them either as demons or angels comes from less mature minds.

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.[3][4]

Wow. Seems like a very one-sided view of history. I remember it as more of mixed bag.

As I remember it inflation went from very high down to current levels. A movement that many said might not be possible due to a 'new normal'.

Tax revenues went up a lot - it's claimed that was due to tax and regulation reduction.

But spending went up. Congress, which has most control of the budget, was under control of the opposition party much of his administration -- that's either the explanation or an excuse. The balance resulted in a increase in debt.

Here is an excerpt showing what I think is the downside of reagonomics from the article....alot of the article talks about the good aspects:

During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households—those who naturally owned the most stock—saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth—who presumably owned no stock—endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat.

This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society.

This seems to be the pattern which many economists are predicting will more or less repeat. Other commentaters are saying that we will just have to wait and see what happens and call this another test of "trickle down economics" and we will see if it works this time....this is how I look at it....time will tell. Of course there is ivanka who says that this will eliminate the federal debt over time!....she isn't saying anything about what will happen to wages in the lower half of the income scale.
chownah

HEY EVERYBODY OUT THERE READING THIS,
If you did not know which nation gave him a tax cut would you please post here telling us that? I would love to be proven wrong by saying that I think that everyone (except for him) knew. Please come and post! I will be thankful for your input.
chownah

Hi Chownah,

I'd like to help out, but unfortunately the OP had "Location: Miramar Beach, Fl." on it, and that (plus the frequent references to God Dam Trump) sort of gave the game away...

I think that your post is supporting my position in that it seems that anyone paying close attention had some pretty good reasons to think it wasn't india (for example).
chownah
HELLO EVERYONE,
I'm still hoping that anyone who saw the original post and did not know that it was an american tax cut to please post saying that so that I will know that my view that pretty much everyone knew is wrong. I like to be proven wrong...so "make my day" by showing me I'm wrong about this. Really, I will be glad to hear it!
chownah

This seems to be the pattern which many economists are predicting will more or less repeat. Other commentaters are saying that we will just have to wait and see what happens and call this another test of "trickle down economics" and we will see if it works this time....this is how I look at it....time will tell. Of course there is ivanka who says that this will eliminate the federal debt over time!....she isn't saying anything about what will happen to wages in the lower half of the income scale.
chownah

Last time I checked you were confused between a libertarian and librarian .. now you are a commentator on economics?

(btw I got a screen shot of it so do not correct it now .. after 2 years)

It was a gem chownah .. opposite of authoritarian is librarian even Groucho Marx could not have done it better .. maybe you should start a Youtube channel "Late afternoon with Chownah" since you seem to have a natural ability at saying things that make others laugh .. a rare gift indeed.

Note to mods - he was poking me so I replied .. it is fair game .. if my post is deleted .. his should be too.